4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.
5.  In December 1988, following the appraisal results, the applicant was dismissed from her position in a scientific institute.
First set of proceedings
6.  In 1988-1994 the applicant instituted several proceedings against her former employer raising numerous issues related to her employment and subsequent dismissal. All of the judgments and decisions adopted upon the applicant's complaints became final in 1989-1994.
7.  In August 1994 the applicant instituted new proceedings in the Dzerzhynskyy District Court against her former employer asking to modify her labour record, to provide her with a duplicate of her labour record, claiming salary arrears allegedly due to her and raising a number of other issues related to her employment and dismissal. During the consideration of her case the applicant several times changed her complaints and claims, and introduced new ones.
8.  On 6 December 1995 the court found in part for the applicant.
9.  On 20 February 1996 the Kharkiv Regional Court quashed this judgment in part and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
10.  On 18 September 1997 the hearing was postponed because the parties failed to appear before the court.
11.  On 12 December 1997 the hearing was postponed because the defendant's representative failed to appear.
12.  In 1998 fourteen court hearings took place. Twice they were adjourned because of the defendant's failure to appear and three times because the court requested additional documentary evidence and the judge participated in another hearing. Also on 23 October 1998 the applicant introduced an additional complaint.
13.  In January-February 1999 four court hearings took place.
14.  On 22 February 1999 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court found in part for the applicant.
15.  On 18 May 1999 the Kharkiv Regional Court quashed this judgment in part and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
16.  From May 1999 until July 2001 six hearings were scheduled but none of them took place. On 16 December 1999, 8 June 2000, 28 December 2000 and 27 February 2001 the hearings were postponed because the parties failed to appear and on 2 April 2001 and 3 July 2001 - because the defendant failed to appear.
17.  On 24 July 2001 the hearing was adjourned following the request of the defendant's representative to obtain additional documents.
18.  From 31 July until 28 November 2001 eight hearings took place and two were postponed because the defendant failed to appear and because the judge was considering another case.
19.  On 28 November 2001 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed against this judgment.
20.  On 7 March 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (former Kharkiv Regional Court) satisfied the applicant's request to replace judge K. in her case.
21.  On 1 April 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 28 November 2001. The applicant appealed against the judgment of 1 April 2002.
22.  On 12 June and 15 August 2002 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court returned the applicant's cassation appeal and refused to renew the time-limit for its lodging.
23.  On 17 September 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed these decisions and renewed the above time-limit.
24.  On 14 November 2003 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court sent the applicant's cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.
25.  On 30 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
26.  The applicant lodged numerous requests with the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and with the Bar Association asking to provide her with a lawyer. By letters of 11 March 2001 and 4 April 2002 the Ministry informed the applicant that free legal aid was available only in criminal proceedings.
Second set of proceedings
27.  In January 1992, upon the complaint of Mr P., the Dzerzhynskyy District Court instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for defamation. In May 1996 the case was closed.
28.  In February 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine claiming compensation for moral damage caused by the institution of a criminal case against her.
29.  On 30 January 1998 the court found against the applicant. On 7 March 1998 the Kharkiv Regional Court upheld this judgment.
30.  In July 2003 the applicant requested the court to review her case in the light of new circumstances. On 7 November 2003 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court rejected the applicant's request. On 20 January 2004 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision.
Third set of proceedings
31.  In March 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Frunzenskyy District Court challenging the amount of her pension.
32.  On 21 December 1999 the court found against the applicant. On 8 February 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.
33.  On 24 January 2001 the Frunzenskyy District Court found in part for the applicant. On 13 March 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court upheld this judgment. On 5 October 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal under the new cassation procedure.
Fourth set of proceedings
34.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Moskovskyy District Court challenging the results of her appraisal.
35.  On 27 June 2001 the court returned the applicant's complaint. On 24 January 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. In particular, the court stated that the applicant did not submit her complaint in accordance with the procedural formalities prescribed by law. On 8 April 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
Fifth set of proceedings
36.  In April 2001 the applicant instituted further proceedings in the Kharkiv Regional Court challenging the results of her appraisal.
37.  On 25 April 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal returned the applicant's complaint because it should have been considered by a lower court. On 27 June 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this decision and forwarded the applicant's case to the Dzerzhynskiy Local Court.
38.  On 5 June 2002 the Dzerzhinskiy Local Court closed the case on the ground that the applicant had lodged similar complaint with the Moskovskyy Local Court and on 27 June 2001 it had been considered. On 11 November 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision as a whole. However, it changed the reasoning of the lower court stating that the applicant's complaint was not to be considered by the court because in 1988 the legislation had not provided for possibility to challenge in the court a dismissal based on the results of the appraisal. On 20 November 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.
Sixth set of proceedings
39.  In 2001-2003 the applicant instituted several sets of proceedings in the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine complaining that the local courts did not consider her complaints properly. All of the applicant's complaints were rejected on the ground that judges bear no civil liability for decisions taken in their official capacity.
Seventh set of proceedings
40.  In 2003-2004 the applicant instituted several sets of proceedings in the Moskovskyy District Court against the Moskovskyy District Pension Fund Department in Kharkiv challenging their actions and claiming to recalculate the amount of her pension.
41.  On 13 June 2003 and 28 September 2004 the court found in part for the applicant. On 23 March 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 28 September 2004.
42.  The applicant requested the Moskovskyy District Court to adopt an additional decision in her case. On 1 October 2004 the court rejected the applicant's request and this decision was upheld on 10 August 2005 and on 10 November 2005 by the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, respectively.
Eighth set of proceedings
43.  The applicant instituted two more sets of proceedings in the Chervonozavodskyy District Court against the “Evropeyskiy” company (a successor of her former employer) requesting to issue her a number of documents and labour records to be submitted to the Pension Fund. The applicant also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 22 May 2003 the court found in part for the applicant. On 21 October 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.
44.  On 26 January 2005 the court found in part for the applicant and awarded her UAH 5,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 18 January 2006 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and found against the applicant.